1st. Inter-changable parts aren't within the technological capabilities of the empire.

2nd. A catalyst, by definition, wouldn't actually *do* anything; a catalyst is supposed to enable chemical reactions to occur at reasonable temperatures. So, I'm not sure exactly what you meant to say.

3rd. If a soulgem has to power weapon discharge AND the enchantment, wouldn't that just mean it uses twice the soul-points to give the same effect, plus some shrapnel?

If you would, Jackhuman, please interject after everyone else has gotten a chance to speak up, so that we have fair oppertunities to speak.

Kratochek wrote:Chara:

1st. Inter-changable parts aren't within the technological capabilities of the empire.

2nd. A catalyst, by definition, wouldn't actually *do* anything; a catalyst is supposed to enable chemical reactions to occur at reasonable temperatures. So, I'm not sure exactly what you meant to say.

3rd. If a soulgem has to power weapon discharge AND the enchantment, wouldn't that just mean it uses twice the soul-points to give the same effect, plus some shrapnel?

@Rae: Actually, it probably works better on the forum If I just post after every counter argument to my idea, rather than having to go through them one on one. The turn order thing works best in a rp setting, but not in a debate session like this.

@ Chara

1. interchangeable parts are always within the tech level of anyone with metal crafting ability, it's called using molds and being very precise for metal, wood can be done easier, glues and such to make it work right.

2. actually that's the scientific catalyst, a magic catalyst is something that channels and focuses energies, like a the typical fantasy wizard staff that is in a story rather than a game.

3. more or less the enchantment is set on the catalyst, then the soul gem's energy is pushed through like you would pour hot water through coffee filters to make that handmade coffe stuff that was before all the machines that basically do it for you.

... and I am too tired to debate further today, I'll take a look back at this page in the morning.

0

A FANDOM User

• 3/2/2015

Illogictree

I think what needs to be answered first is:

Why do you want guns in Tamriel in the first place?

They don't fit with the flavor established in the games. They don't fit with the lore.

This is completely apart from the question of how they would work / if they even could / if a staff does exactly everything you want a gun to do, which is entirely a red herring in this conversation.

Admittedly, I've personally bent the lore and flavor a bit myself with my own character, so this might sound a little hypocritical. But I maintain that guns completely break with the flavor of the games and setting.

Also, please respect the posting order. There's a reason we have it.

0

A FANDOM User

• 3/2/2015

Raeseil
I apologize, but I have some limited knowledge that I"m working with as I go along, so if I have any inaccuracies, I hope you would kindly point them out.

1Jack
<quote> Ok, the basic structure for the gun is simple, a chamber to draw out the raw magical energy from a fully charged soulgem, </quote>
Soulgems have only been displayed for burst releases. That is, someone sets one off and that's it. It has been done so in the context of enchantments possibly because enchantments are the only found useful way to channel these soul gems.
Soulgems, after all, function by a singular soul's channeling to a product.

<quote>would also probaby have some sorta kenetic force launching some metal shard at high velocities outta the barrel. I mean, there is a telekinesis spell after all, so throwing things at high speeds should be an easy thing to figure out. </quote>
Partially fair...partially. Bullets project on supersonic or just a few hairs to subsonic rate. Can anyone confirm that any casting of telekenesis displays this degree of extremely high object mobilizing speed, esepecially in a single setting?
Specifically, doing this with the soul gems that would be practical to fuel the spell appropriately with, so unless if you intend for guns to be an novelty restricted to the rich soldier...

<quote> The type of catalyst would determine the additional effect the metal ball/bullet would have on impact, if any. </quote>
The word catalyst may be inappropriate for what you're trying to explain. That's all I wanted to say on this point.

<quote>... well that's the basics of it. the soulgems themselves provide raw magical energies, the enchanting proccess is what gives a regular weapon it's effects, not the soulgem itself, though after an enchant is set a soulgem can be used to recharge the enchantment. </quote>
Do we have any automated enchantments? Because apparently the catalyst is automating the enchantment. Maigc like this would be rediculously revolutionary for Nirn alone. In advance, don't put down 'scrolls do', because they're just a paused spellcasting. Books don't, they just carry instructions.

<quote>This concept of my basically removes the entire recharge stage, and just draws power directly from the gem instead, so while all soulgems, other than the two speical ones in skyrim Azura's star and it's corrupted counterpart, are one use only, people do collect a bunch of them in their travels now don't they?</quote>
Adventurer's versed in soul gem colleciton are. Player Charrie isn't every character. Soul gem collection appears to be a facet practiced by experienced mages. Heck, soul collection on its own is a spell, and we don't see people flinging around spells on self defense!
The elaboration also reinforces that soul gems are functioned in single burst dispersements, rather than a repeated draw style associated with guns.
Furthermore, gutting out the enchantment setting stage doesn't really necssarily make the design more practical. Actually, it would have a detrimental effect because the enchantment has to set and released every time you want to use the weapon, versus established single action enchantment releases from bulk-charge enchantments.

<quote>probably not in the first conception, I mean guns were not more effiecent as bow and arrows when they were first being used. I mean, they took long to reload, were clunky, cumbersome, prone to missfire, but at the same time, we still continued to use them... or the White men did in the colonizing of the Americas. I mean really, this is more or less the start of the musket in TES. </quote>
I would like to point out that you went through the pains to establish bullet spin in the gun. A proper blueprint for an object thrower is, while it can be considered innovative, practical... Cognitive innovation to account for an invisible and anticipated force with a precise concept of what you are attempting to accomplish?
I'm [not] sorry, I'd like to point out that you've just jumped it and used many years of research and attempted overcoming to bridge a big gap. There is a massive gap in the line of thought between "I need this projectile to fly straight" and "perpindicular spinning forces will stabalize the interaction of the obeject against air resistance.

<quote>well, here's the thing, first concept will probably use spherical ammunition, seeing as this is basically some kinda automated musket design atm. Automated as in, you only gotta load the sphere into the barrel to load it from the muzzle. Design idea is not good enough to use conventional bullet shapes as is atm.

Edit due to recent thought from re reading after positng: Could also use some really large bullet shaped slugs that are either pencil sized or the diameter of a regular musket ball but just longer... but I think the spherical bullet will work best for now. </quote>
Design idea... I'm going to point out there was no trial phases whatsoever. Your character just on the whim decided to import an entirely functional invention on the drop of the hat. Not just an invention as it is, but an entirely off the wall but entirely functional idea. That flys in a modern or sci-fi setting, but not here.

<quote>@Rae: Actually, it probably works better on the forum If I just post after every counter argument to my idea, rather than having to go through them one on one. The turn order thing works best in a rp setting, but not in a debate session like this. </quote>
Oh, I'm sorry, it works better to make people feel like they're cut off, not have a chance to speak, and just stir a chaotic mess where people are primed to reply and wish to cut out of their established order?
I mean, just having this disorganized rapidfire mess?
Or do you mean that it helps everyone get upset that you spontaniously ignored what was a lot of us wanted to go for on a whim of impulse that characterizes you as immature and not worth wasitng time and stress to talk to?
Or do you mean that it's better for denying the impression that people can add to what other people have to say and makes the argument slated in your favor?
Or do you mean it is better at making you look obnoxious and controlling?
Or do you mean that it is better to make this look like a flame war hissy fit table throwing argument instead of a coherient discussion?
Or do you mean it is better at making the whole topic look rapid fire and half-hearted gossip rather than giving yourself and everyone participating the breathing room to feel like they can talk and formulate coherient and full ideas instead of one liners of a critical matter with long term implications?
Or do you mean it's great for establishing the impression that you just want to hear yourself speak and not seem to actually listen to others?
Pick any at your favor, but to be honest you're doing a graet job at all of the above. I am trying to help you here by upgrading this from a spontanious mob into a serious sharing of thoughts. I may not be for your idea either, but that doesn't mean I'll give you a fair chance if you give me the oppertunity to do so.

<quote>1. interchangeable parts are always within the tech level of anyone with metal crafting ability, it's called using molds and being very precise for metal, wood can be done easier, glues and such to make it work right. </quote>
I'm going to bluntly say "no". The industrial revolution was partially caused by the innovation of fine-constructed modular parts. This was done in the late 1000s IRL. Until then every product was specifically fitted against every product on a case-by-case basis. I think there might've been molds, but not to the refined functionality established by general advancement of civilization.

<quote>2. actually that's the scientific catalyst, a magic catalyst is something that channels and focuses energies, like a the typical fantasy wizard staff that is in a story rather than a game. </quote>
You said channeling and shaping in your first post. That is decisively more than what you are establishing in establishing the meaning of 'catalyst'.

<quote>3. more or less the enchantment is set on the catalyst, then the soul gem's energy is pushed through like you would pour hot water through coffee filters to make that handmade coffe stuff that was before all the machines that basically do it for you. </quote>
Enchantment set on the catalyst? What enchantment part? See? Full, thorough ideas. You didn't inrtoduce a separate enchantment--- no, you actually outright said the cataylst doubled as the enchantment mechanism, which by the way makes it not be a 'catalyst' anymore. Also, coffee makers are a great analogy, since most coffee makers are primtiive in making a bulk singular release...you know, kind of like every instance of a soul gem has been.

---

Ok, now that...
...Oh we just HAD TO have a lot to say in chat, didn't we? And hardly an of it went into the boards! Ugh! You people! ;.;
I'll just hit what hasn't been hit or hadn't seemed to have been hit sufficiently.

<quote>Xylas: ( 'cause reasons and if they made firearms everyone would have them due to looting their homes )
Xylas: ( thus making it more modern )</quote>
I'm going to point out that this insinuates, if not establishes, that you went and openly attempted to override the establishment of the setting that deliberately attempted to modernize by establishing modernizing concepts volenarily.

<quote>Xylas: ( if a sword can cast fireballs, you can make a gun that shoots lightning )</quote>
I'll point this out because it was missed over. If you wanted to make a gun that shoots lightning, eh, you can be less weird...and make a stick that shoots lightning... and... well... call it a lightning staff.

<quote>Xylas: ( well it's got faster recharge time than a staff )
Xylas: ( just swap the cyrstals )
Xylas: ( done )</quote>
I press a soul gem against my staff and it can shoot again. I don't even have to take out a magazine. Stalves have single action magazine replacement. While this doesn't detract from direct validity, the concept was still established. Also, you need to load the gun with the physical ammo every time you shoot, so a Xylas gun actually has TWO reloads to work with.
This is unless if the magical charge is a direct ammo in which this is just an alternative design of a magical staff, just like Kjan said. ...a staff that needs additional steps of acitons to properly signal to fire.

<quote>Rall: ( A soul gem disappears when used. You are not reloading. )
Rall: ( Sorry, Rae. )
Xylas: ( when used to enchant )
Xylas: ( this is not enchanting )</quote>
The enchanting process doesn't destroy the soul gem. The release of the soul gem does so. Otherwise enchantment would destroy azura's star. There's no implication that azura's star regenerates after enchanting specifically would destroy it.

<quote>Xylas: ( yeah, but it fires rappidly if needed )</quote>
This is just digging a hole, here, Xylas. You're trying to vouche for your gun idea, and in part of this you're just making it sound like the most broken awesome overpowered thing ever: Extremely fast and unspokenly powerful usage. Just pointign this out.

<quote>Xylas: ( doesn;t exist because hasn't been researched into in the universe )</quote>
Or it just isn't physically possible and/or practical. If something doesn't exist it specifically and strictly means:
Nothing will make it exist or nothing has made it exist yet
It is unable to exist
It doesn't mean "I get to make it happen because nobody else bothered to, including the amazingly legendarily advanced race!"

<quote>Xylas: ( right yeah those trap pylons in the norse tombs in skyrim that zapped ya unless you snuck up on 'em )
Xylas: ( those used soulgems repeatedly just fine without enchanting )</quote>
Has anything established that they weren't just set with a massive charge through a soul gem or somehow automated the process of setting soul gems as they depleted? ...That is, using soul gems in exactly the way they're established to be used.

<quote>Xylas: ( as I've said several times already, the gun thing would work much like some laser or plasma weapon that uses batter packs in some sci-fi series )</quote>
Excuse me.Do you not see the problem with this idea?

<qoote>Xylas: ( by the way, I know the whole answer )</quote>
Please do not act smug when you're trying to win people over. People who just had their RP rudely disrupted by your decision to volentarily go on at length about guns? I'm not going to say other people aren't also responsible that the conversation carried on...but..yeahh..

(in regards to fireworks)
<quote>Xylas: ( someone made something that blew up and was pretty )</quote>
Spells are flashy, too. How do we know it's not something automated by magic altogether. Unless if we can find the source and that it isn't a spell...? ...Also that it is functionally possible to weaponize.

<quote>Xylas: ( more charges and can be aimed better )</quote>
You can aim a staff just as well at a target as a gun...if not better since it is often insinuated in fantasy that a spell from a staff is pointed in the right direction by your mind by being conjured for usage in the first place.

<quote>Ko'Kihtar: (Is it that the reason Tamriel doesn't have guns is because it's against the pseudo-medieval-european flavor of the Elder Scrolls series?)
Xylas: ( yeah, probably. but while this entire role play this is cannon to us, it's not really cannon in the elderscrolls timeline )</quote
Illogic Tree was saying this was a flavor clash. It's not a canonicity argument, it's a themic argument.

<quote>Xylas: ( Being a mad man does not mean I'm a god modder -.-" )</quote>
But...
Developing advanced technology on the fly with perfect functionality,
Excelling at everything you do
Literally just being generally unstoppable by anything short of gods (referencing what you mentioned about your stats when you used the calm spell) EVEN IF NOTHING ELSE
Being able to excel at everything with no apparent drawbacks except when you feel like having drawbacks. (Which sounded good until you displayed that the inhibitions you set would not necessarily stay on in the course of RP))
Openly accessing something unstoppable. (the calm spell directly)
Attempting to negate validity of other people's content. (the usage of the calm spell, which attempted to negate character continuinity)
Auto-ing (The way you blew off CARL's head)
Negating merit of a resistance because of a personal sense of granduer (negating CARL's argument towards inability to utilize the chainsawcorn chainsaw literally specifically because your character 'was that good')
Excessively retroactively justifying an action with 'unspoken contengencies' (the ability to manufacture the chainsawcorn chainsaw into a weapon, which by the way you didn't even really make any action to manufacturing the product before using it, to invalidate arguments against you doing it)
Dominating RP control (The way the automated ride was skipped over completely and automatically on your whim without regard to if other players were going to do it or even understood what was going on.)
If I understand part of how your stats are as they are...Literally building your stats out of acknowledged glitching and game breaking with the coherent and conscious understanding that the game was not meant to work that way...
I'm sorry, but there's plenty to say that you're godmodding ANYWAY, and Rall was saying that you were being overmuch as it is, not that the gun was directly godmodding on its own.

<quote>Rall: ( Okay. But, here's a question: Is there anything Xylas can't do? )
Xylas: ( survive a lava bath? )</quote>
This is what Rall was trying to point this out. This is what we're getting at about 'can't do?'. What easily calls into mind is that your character is something silly and absurd, and not some practical weakness...
Godmoding is not literal omnipotenence. IF that was it everyone could just say 'don't be god' rather than don't godmod. Your character feels limitless, and that was what Rall was saying, and whether volentarily or involentarily so, you pretty much disregarded the matter itself.

Look, I'm not pissed off at you, or anything. I don't hate you, or don't think you can RP. I hold out for thinking that we can work this out and all have fun togehter, but I went and spent...I think literally two hours...? --Trying to explain that we have a problem. it's feeling like it's not being taken entirely seriously, though.
If you're honest, then I know you don't want to be left out and be absolutely OP. After all, you literally stated that you were trying not to be OP, didn't you?

I don't think we necessarily don't have high level cahracters... It's about fair characters being fair and not making everyone around them feel redundant. Honestly, at this point this also goes out to everyone...
I'd like us to not polarize him against us and half-heartedly say what we mean. It's not entirely bad, but I feel like we can be better.

I have a wall of text as it is, so I'm leaving this here.

0

A FANDOM User

• 3/2/2015

Rae

I apologize Illogictree, but yeah... The theme clash is an issue of its own, and actually it's more significant than the matter of the guns itself. Likewise the whole matter of how guns as a character trait adds to the feeling of upward-strong imbalance in the characterization of character Xylas is an issue, which is why I went ahead and covered the matter of how Xylas feels as a character...

But, bleh...again, I will have to lnd you oppertunity to speak before I continue.

Sorry to break the turn order, but please. PLEASE. DO NOT nest your response to someone in your reply to someone else, especially if the two have nothing to do with each other. I really shouldn't need to explain this.

0

A FANDOM User

• 3/2/2015

Raeseil

Sorry that I have gotten off topic. A couple things I think I should say. I can try to ask Kjang about, as a moderator, removing my post if you'd like, because I kind of went off topic by talking about Xylas as a character, which even if connected to the whole matter of the guns themselves, really ought to be addressed in the chat like planned to rather than brought up here.

That and although I'll call the rest of it fair game, I probably should explain when I was saying "Just the clam spell" i mean the ability of total effectiveness associated with spells like calm being enforced, like I did at time.

... yep, dunno saw wall of text, brain read it as gibberish as how clustered it was and I feel drained at the moment.

Honestly my entire idea for this was, more or less, that you could make a gun like weapon with magic which works relatively well in theory... but it's just a train of thought that the TES universe just hasn't made due to the weapons currently available work well enough for them at this point in time.

Either way, doesn't seem like it's worth this much hassle trying to explain it to people who don't seem to be connecting the dots in the same manner as I do.

Actually, I see the merit in the possibility of guns being made, but it's the practicality that's the problem. That said, Xylas seems like just the character who would make a highly impractical weapon just because it's cool.